Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Gulf Coast Petrochemical Boom Contributing to Global Plastics Glut
May 17, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
In the plastics industry, it’s a good time to be a buyer. -
Chemical Reform, Coal Ash Bill Markup Look in the Week Ahead
May 16, 2016 | BNA Energy and Environment Blog
By Anthony Adragna
Though the process has been fraught with false alarms, House and Senate negotiators appear to be on the verge—finally—of merging a broad Senate overhaul of the nation’s primary chemicals law (S. 697) with a narrower House-passed version (H.R. 2576). -
Rep. Pallone in Spat Over Animal Testing Reduction
May 16, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
Animal welfare groups are increasing the pressure on Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, for what they say is his reluctance to include testing reduction language in a final chemicals bill. -
House Democrats Urge Pallone To Support Animal Test Limits In TSCA Bill
May 16, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
House Democrats are urging energy panel ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) to resolve an apparent dispute over language suggested by senators for a compromise Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill that aims to limit toxicity testing on animals, the latest potential barrier to Congress advancing a final bill. -
House Democrats Flag Up Animal Testing in TSCA Reform
May 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Almost 40 US House Democrats are urging support of a Senate proposal aimed at reducing animal testing under a modernised chemicals law. -
US EPA Issues Snurs for 55 Chemicals
May 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The US EPA has issued significant new use rules (Snurs) for 55 chemical substances, which were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). -
Product Labelling Requirements Cover Fragrances, Dyes, Preservatives
May 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A bill requiring full ingredient disclosure in a variety of cleaning products has been introduced in the US House of Representatives. -
Solvent Harms Kidney Function, EPA Assessment Finds
May 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A widely used solvent and fuel additive can harm kidney function, according to a draft assessment the Environmental Protection Agency released May 16. -
EU Calls for Workplace Exposure Limits on Carcinogens
May 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Commission proposed to amend May 13 a 2004 European Union directive on workplace safety by modifying occupational exposure limits for 13 carcinogenic substances. -
Court Decides to Bypass Panel, Delays Arguments Until Fall
May 16, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
High-stakes litigation over the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan will bypass review by a panel of three judges and instead go before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the fall. -
D.C. Circuit Shifts Plans for Obama Climate Cases
May 16, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Brent Kendall
A federal appeals court decision on the legality of Obama administration rules limiting carbon emissions from power plants likely won’t come until after the November election, thanks to a notable scheduling change announced Monday. -
Court Showdown Over Obama's Climate Rule Delayed Until the Fall
May 17, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Opponents of the Obama administration’s landmark climate change rule will have to wait three more months to argue their case in federal court. -
Delay in EPA Climate Case Means Decision Unlikely Until After Obama Leaves
May 16, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
President Barack Obama will most likely be a private citizen by the time a court weighs in on the centerpiece of his agenda to fight climate change.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Gulf Coast Petrochemical Boom Contributing to Global Plastics Glut
May 17, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
In the plastics industry, it’s a good time to be a buyer.
The Gulf Coast petrochemical boom and an expansion of the industry in China are leading to an oversupply of the world’s two most common plastics, polyethylene and polypropylene, according to a new report from the IHS research firm. As a result, IHS projects that prices and profits will fall and plans to expand or build petrochemical plants will be delayed or scrapped.
The “economics will be challenged in the near term as global capacity expansions exceed demand growth and pressure margins,” said Nick Vafiadis, IHS Chemical global business director for polyolefins and plastics, in statement.
The U.S. shale boom created an abundance of cheap natural gas, which is used to make chemicals that serve as the building blocks of plastics. IHS estimates more than 24 million metric tons of new polyethylene capacity — equivalent to one-fourth of global consumption — is coming online by 2020. About 8 million metric tons of the new production will come from the United States.
Many new petrochemical plants are being built near Houston and along the Gulf Coast, but fears of a plastics glut has some companies putting planned projects on hold indefinitely. For instsance, Houston-based Ascend Performance Materials said it Monday that it would further delay the construction of its $1.2 billion propane dehydrogenation, or PDH, plant at its Chocolate Bayou campus in Alvin.
The plant, which would make propylene, a primarily building block of many plastics, was originally scheduled to be completed at the end of this year. Last year, the company said it would push back the opening to 2019. Now, it’s been delayed indefinitely.
In the United States,, the American Chemistry Council counts 266 projects planned from 2010 to 2023 that cost $164 billion to build. Texas would be home for 104 of the projects — worth $51.3 billion — and most of those are in southern Texas, including the Houston area. The council expects those projects to result in 15,800 direct new jobs in Texas — not counting construction jobs — and 67,000 nationwide.
Companies including Exxon IMobil Corp., Chevron Phillips, Dow Chemical Co., BASF and LyondellBasell have multi-billion-dollar expansion projects underway in areas such as Baytown, Channelview, Mont Belvieu, La Porte and Freeport. Many will be done in a year or so.
North America and China are now competing much more directly with the Middle East on plastics exports, which should leads to lowered prices and profit margins, Vafiadas stated.
“There will be significant trade imbalances as we see North America and the Middle East both add more (polyethylene) capacity than is warranted for their domestic markets, so exports will be key for producers,” he added.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/05/17/gulf-coast-petrochemical-boom-contributing-to-global-plastics-glut/
-
Chemical Reform, Coal Ash Bill Markup Look in the Week Ahead
May 16, 2016 | BNA Energy and Environment Blog
By Anthony Adragna
Though the process has been fraught with false alarms, House and Senate negotiators appear to be on the verge—finally—of merging a broad Senate overhaul of the nation’s primary chemicals law (S. 697) with a narrower House-passed version (H.R. 2576). Completing work on the bill—and moving it through the Senate and House quickly, as lawmakers hope to do—would result in the first major new environmental statute since 1990.
Some other events to watch for this week in the environmental and energy world:
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee holds a markup Wednesday where it will consider legislation tweaking the Environmental Protection Agency’s final coal ash rule and reauthorizing the Brownfields program. The committee will also consider the nominations of two EPA officials: Tom Burke to be EPA assistant administrator of the Office of Research and Development and Science Advisor, and Jane Nishida to be EPA assistant administrator of the Office of International and Tribal Affairs.
The American Law Institute and Environment Law Institute host a two-day seminar on the Clean Water Act Thursday and Friday in Washington. Highlights include a panel on the EPA’s waters of the U.S. rulemaking, a session on the intersection of the Clean Water Act and climate change; and a keynote address from John Cruden, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to vote Wednesday on legislation that delays implementation of the 2015 ozone air standards (H.R. 4775) and foster research and development for advanced nuclear energy technologies (H.R. 4979). Both bills cleared a subcommittee last week.
Climate negotiators from around the world gather this week in Bonn, Germany, for the first formal gathering of all the nations since the 2015 Paris Agreement was reached. Key goals of the meeting are to assure transparency in the way domestic actions to combat climate change are recorded and finding ways to prevent countries from backsliding on the commitments made in Paris.
http://www.bna.com/chemical-reform-coal-b57982072440/
-
Rep. Pallone in Spat Over Animal Testing Reduction
May 16, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
Animal welfare groups are increasing the pressure on Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, for what they say is his reluctance to include testing reduction language in a final chemicals bill.
Humane Society of the United States President Wayne Pacelle wrote in a blog post Friday that Pallone was blocking "a genuine breakthrough in public policy" by failing to allow the House and Senate chemicals reform bills to be reconciled.
In a letter sent Friday, 39 of Pallone's Democratic House colleagues urged him to work quickly to reconcile the language.
Pallone is leading House Democrats' efforts to merge the two bills -- S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," and H.R. 2576, or the "TSCA Modernization Act."
The lawmakers said that "core elements" of the provision had already won the support of the Environmental Working Group, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Consumer Specialty Products Association, and animal welfare organizations like the Humane Society and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
Scott Faber, EWG's vice president for governmental affairs, said that the Humane Society had developed testing language different from that of the original Senate proposal.
In a story published today, Politico cited anonymous Senate aides who claimed Pallone's opposition to the testing language was due to a personal vendetta against Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), whom Pallone lost a primary election to in 2013.
Pallone was "trying to deny Booker credit for saving so many animals," Pacelle said, according to the report.
Pallone's office didn't respond to a request for comment today.
Though the negotiations over the two bills have been delayed for months, other issues remain in addition to the animal testing provision.
The House and Senate bills took markedly different approaches, with the Senate plan getting far more specific with how EPA would implement the provisions.
The Senate bill goes into detail on issues like science standards and limitations on the use of animal testing.
Under the Senate bill, EPA would have to propose within two years a plan to promote the development and implementation of non-animal testing methods. It would also have to explain why it ordered animal testing and minimize it "to the extent practicable" through alternative methods.
In comments sent to legislators earlier this year, though not mentioning the animal rules, U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy warned that the Senate bill made so many policy prescriptions for EPA that it could delay needed activities (E&E Daily, March 4).
While the animal testing section has won the bill the full-throated support of the animal welfare movement, other environmental groups have long questioned if limiting EPA's authority to generate information on chemicals could ultimately play into the hands of the chemical industry by making it more difficult to prove that a chemical is unsafe (E&E Daily, June 23, 2015).
The issue has split the environmental movement over the years.
Groups like the Environmental Working Group have lobbied for chemical companies to prove their products present a "reasonable certainty of no harm," but animal welfare groups have said the goal is unattainable because it would harm too many animals.
Meanwhile, some animal researchers say their findings can't be replicated using non-animal testing methods.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/05/16/stories/1060037329
-
House Democrats Urge Pallone To Support Animal Test Limits In TSCA Bill
May 16, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
House Democrats are urging energy panel ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) to resolve an apparent dispute over language suggested by senators for a compromise Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill that aims to limit toxicity testing on animals, the latest potential barrier to Congress advancing a final bill.
“[W]e are concerned that the animal testing language is still not reconciled,” says a May 13 letter to Pallone from Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and 38 other House Democrats. They urge Pallone's support in a final TSCA reform compromise between the House and Senate for “language offered by Senate negotiators that will reduce animal testing for chemical safety testing and place a priority on newer, more effective, and reliable methods.”
Lawmakers have been working toward resolving final differences between the Senate-approved TSCA reform bill S. 697 and the narrower reform bill that cleared the House, H.R. 2576. Prospects for a final bill were seen as improving earlier this month after senators reached a deal on the extent to which TSCA reform should preempt state chemicals program, which key House lawmakers said they are inclined to support.
In a May 12 interview with Inside EPA, House Energy & Commerce Committee environment panel Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) said “As far as I understand it, I'm supportive” of the deal struck between Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
But Pallone's apparent reluctance to back the animal testing provision -- first reported by Politico -- could create a fresh hurdle for the legislation.
The provision, spearheaded by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), has the support of Senate Republicans and Democrats, and a wide swath of industry and environmental groups, according to a Humane Society of the United States' May 13 press release.
The language that the House Democratic lawmakers urge Pallone to consider would “ensure that existing information is used before more animal testing is requested; that tests that also replace, and not just reduce, animal tests are considered; and finally, that industry consider non-animal approaches when performing voluntary testing prior to submitting an application to EPA,” the press release says.
An animal rights source says that they understand that Senate negotiators, despite some concessions, have had a “tough time with some House negotiators about the totality of the language.”
The source says they are “surprised that this tiny little section of language is still be contested,” but do not have a clear sense of what Pallone's or other House lawmakers' concerns may be.
The House bill was considerably limited compared to the Senate bill, and would require EPA to every five years review the adequacy of the policies, procedures, and guidance for toxicity testing with respect to animal, nonanimal, and epidemiological test methods and procedures, revising them if necessary.
The Senate bill would require that EPA develop a strategic plan to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods and testing strategies to reduce the use of animal tests, that any voluantry tests sought by industry must first consider alternative methodologies before resorting to animal testing, and other provisions aimed at limiting the use of animal tests in favor of computational toxicology, high-throughput screening, and other methods.
Spokespeople for Booker and Pallone did not return requests for comment by press time.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-democrats-urge-pallone-support-animal-test-limits-tsca-bill
-
House Democrats Flag Up Animal Testing in TSCA Reform
May 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Almost 40 US House Democrats are urging support of a Senate proposal aimed at reducing animal testing under a modernised chemicals law. And they expressed their views in a letter last week to party leadership engaged in the ongoing TSCA reform negotiations.
Addressing Congressman Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey) – the ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce – they say they are "concerned that the animal testing language is still not reconciled".
And they urge Mr Pallone to support a Senate proposal "that will reduce animal testing for chemical safety testing and place a priority on newer, more cost-effective, and reliable methods".
That proposal seeks to:ensure that existing data be used before additional testing is requested;require consideration of tests that replace – rather than only reduce – animal testing; andhave industry consider non-animal test methods when performing testing to be submitted to the EPA.
According to the letter, the "core elements" of this proposal have bipartisan support in the Senate, and have been endorsed by NGOs such as the Environmental Defense Fund, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the trade group Consumer Specialty Products Association.
The proposed text is also, it says, "in line with the chemical regulation policies of foreign governments", including the EU.NGO support
In a blog post, HSUS president and CEO Wayne Pacelle says that Mr Pallone "has been standing in the way of an opportunity to reduce animal testing for chemicals".
He calls this "a very unlikely and surprising circumstance for animals", given the Congressman's long-time support of the group.
In a separate statement, the NGO says it hopes "hold-out lawmakers accede to the overwhelming sense of their colleagues that a strong policy requiring the use of alternatives to animal testing, where available, makes good sense."
NGO the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine – representing more than 12,000 doctor members – also spoke out in favour of the Senate's approach.
"The policies in this legislation – supported by many environmental and public health groups, as well as a bipartisan coalition of senators – will ensure strong protection of human health and the environment by modernising toxicity test methods", says its vice president of research policy, Kristie Sullivan.
Negotiations to reconcile TSCA reform bills passed by the House and Senate last year remain ongoing. Anagreement between Senators on key sticking points was reached earlier this month. Several lawmakers have expressed optimism at getting a bill to the President before the summer. But a timeline for the bill's passage and details on whether aspects of a final bill would more closely align with the House or Senate's approaches remain unknown.
A request for comment from Congressman Pallone's office was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Democrats. They could not be reached by the article's deadline.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47417/house-democrats-flag-up-animal-testing-in-tsca-reform
-
US EPA Issues Snurs for 55 Chemicals
May 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The US EPA has issued significant new use rules (Snurs) for 55 chemical substances, which were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). Ten of them are subject to consent orders under section 5(e) of TSCA.
The rules go into effect on 15 July. Anyone intending to manufacture, import or process any of the substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use must notify the agency at least 90 days before starting that activity. The required notification will enable the EPA to evaluate their intended use. If necessary it can prohibit or limit such activity before it occurs.
For those under consent order, the agency has determined that activities associated with the substances may present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. The EPA will require protective measures put in place to limit exposures, or diminish the potential unreasonable risk posed by the use of these substances.
Substances subject to consent orders include:metal oxides;siloxanes;silicones;a fluorinated surfactant; andother fluorinated chemicals that may give rise to degradation products, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS).
The ten substances have a variety of uses, including as battery material, as a polymer additive, in textile treatment and as a cement additive.
With regard to the degradation products, the EPA has ecotoxicity concerns that they may be released into the environment and will persist, could bioaccumulate or biomagnify, and could be toxic (PBT). It also has concerns for toxicity to the lungs for nine of the ten substances. And there are additional concerns related to blood, developmental effects and toxicity to several human organs.
The deadline for submitting written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, on any of the Snurs is 15 June.
If the agency receives such comments on or before the deadline, it will withdraw the relevant Snur. Otherwise, they will go into effect.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47410/us-epa-issues-snurs-for-55-chemicals
-
Product Labelling Requirements Cover Fragrances, Dyes, Preservatives
May 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A bill requiring full ingredient disclosure in a variety of cleaning products has been introduced in the US House of Representatives.
The Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2016 (HR 5205) would direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue regulations requiring certain cleaning products to bear labels with a "complete and accurate list of all the product's ingredients". These would include the individual ingredients in dyes, fragrances and preservatives.
Congressman Steve Israel (D-New York), who has introduced similar measures in the past, is sponsoring the bill. It has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The bill calls for certain products to be labelled with a list of substances they contain, in descending order of predominance by weight. Those ingredients that are less than 1% of the total product weight could be listed in any order at the end.
Additional provisions cover disclosures on manufacturers' websites. These include providing an explanation of the purpose each ingredient serves in the product and its Cas number.
The measure also lays out a process by which members of the public could petition the CPSC alleging that a covered product does not satisfy the requirements of the act.
The bill covers commercial, domestic and institutional cleaning products. Air care products, automotive products, certain disinfectants and polish or floor maintenance products would also be subject to its requirements.Voluntary efforts questioned
Brian Sansoni, vice president of sustainability initiatives at the American Cleaning Institute, told Chemical Watch that federal legislation to mandate ingredient listing on cleaning products is "unnecessary".
According to Mr Sansoni, the industry has already developed a "successful ingredient communication initiative that is designed to provide updated information to consumers" – the voluntary Consumer Product Ingredient Communication Initiative.
Consumers can already learn about ingredients present in products by reading labels, visiting company websites, and contacting cleaning product producers directly, said Mr Sansoni.
"There is more information available than ever before on ingredients contained in consumer cleaning products," he added.
But Erin Switalski, executive director of the NGO Women's Voices for the Earth calls the industry's voluntary disclosure programme inept. She says the bill, if adopted, would be a "game-changer".
"Access to the ingredient information necessary to protect public health from harmful chemicals isn't simply inadequate: in the case of fragrance ingredients, it can be flat-out unattainable," says Ms Switalski.
'For the first time, consumers would know exactly what manufacturers put in every cleaning product and could make informed decisions to protect their health,' Erin Switalski, Women's Voices for the Earth
"For the first time, consumers would know exactly what manufacturers put in every cleaning product and could make informed decisions to protect their health."
Fellow NGO the Environmental Working Group (EWG) says analysis it has recently conducted on more than 400 cleaning products shows that only about a quarter of evaluated products "adequately disclose their ingredients".
It says that many companies use "vague" terms, such as preservative or colourant. It adds that more than two thirds do not provide further detail than perfume or fragrance, which "can mask potentially harmful, persistent chemicals".
Passing the bill, says the NGO, would be a "major victory for the public".
Earlier this year, the California Assembly considered a similar cleaning product ingredient disclosure bill. But facing opposition from a variety of trade groups and companies, it failed to secure passage.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47415/us-house-bill-introduced-on-cleaning-product-ingredients
-
Solvent Harms Kidney Function, EPA Assessment Finds
May 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A widely used solvent and fuel additive can harm kidney function, according to a draft assessment the Environmental Protection Agency released May 16.
The EPA's draft analysis also concluded there is suggestive evidence that the solvent, tert-butyl alcohol (CAS 75-65-0), may cause cancer in people.
The BASF Corp., Evonik Degussa Corp. and Huntsman Corp. were among the companies that produced more than 4.1 billion gallons of tert-butyl alcohol in 2011, according to the most recent domestic production information manufacturers submitted to the agency.
Interested parties may join agency and other scientists June 29-30 at a Public Science Meeting the agency will hold to discuss key science questions raised in the tert-butyl alcohol assessment. Science issues raised by the agency's draft benzo[a]pyrene assessment also will be discussed at that meeting.
Comments on the draft assessments can be submitted to the EPA until July 15.
First IRIS Assessment
This is the first time the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program has assessed tert-butyl alcohol.
IRIS assessments, called toxicological reviews, examine the human health hazards of chemicals, the doses at which those hazards could manifest and the potency of carcinogenic potential if present.
Agency and state regulators combine the hazard, dose-response information and potency information IRIS provides with exposure data to determine whether the risks of specific situations warrant regulations or other forms of risk management.
Tert-butyl alcohol has been used to boost oxygen—thereby reducing carbon monoxide, soot and some other pollutants—from the combustion of 0unleaded gasoline. The solvent also is used for many other purposes, including to “denature” alcohol, as an ingredient in lacquers, paint removers and nail polishes and to extract chemicals in pharmaceuticals production.
EPA's IRIS program is assessing tert-butyl alcohol, also called tert-butanol, in tandem with ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE), because tert-butanol is a primary metabolite of ETBE, the agency's assessment said.
“Some of the toxicological effects of ETBE are attributed to tert-butanol,” EPA said.
The fuel-additive use of tert-butanol is decreasing domestically, because the U.S. has cut its use of ETBE and another fuel oxygenate called methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), EPA said. “But use in Europe and Asia remains strong.”
Companies released a total of 1.9 million pounds of tert-butanol into the environment in 2014, according to data they reported to the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory program.
Draft Risk Values, Conclusions
Based on the results of animal experiments, the EPA's draft assessment focused on concerns about effects tert-butanol could have on the kidneys.
Animal studies also showed some suggestive evidence that tert-butanol could harm development, EPA's draft assessment found.
The agency's draft assessment calculated a reference dose (RfD) of 0.1 milligram per kilogram per day. Lifelong oral consumption of that RfD should not cause harm from non-carcinogenic effects on the body even to sensitive populations.
The tert-butanol assessment also calculated a reference concentration (RfC) of 0.9 milligram per cubic meter of air. Lifelong inhalation of air with that concentration of tert-butanol should not cause harm from non-carcinogenic effects even to sensitive populations.
Laboratory animal data provided suggestive evidence that tert-butanol causes cancer in people, EPA said.
The evidence was not strong enough for the agency to consider classifying the solvent as a likely human carcinogen, but the EPA asked science advisors for their views on the two possible classifications.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89815002&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89815002&jd=89815002
-
EU Calls for Workplace Exposure Limits on Carcinogens
May 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Commission proposed to amend May 13 a 2004 European Union directive on workplace safety by modifying occupational exposure limits for 13 carcinogenic substances.
The commission, the EU's executive arm, said in an impact assessment accompanying the proposal that the EU Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive (2004/37/EC) was “outdated” and “not in line with scientific evidence.” New EU-wide exposure limits for the substances were needed because EU countries have varying national limits, meaning companies in countries with less-stringent controls could “benefit from an undue competitive advantage,” the commission added.
The impact assessment gave the example of 1,2-epoxypropane, one of the 13 substances, for which workplace exposure limits in France, Greece and Romania are 10 times less strict than those in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain.
For another of the substances, 2-nitropropane, 11 of 28 EU member states, including France, Italy and Poland, have no workplace exposure limit, according to the commission's impact assessment.
The other substances for which EU limits would be put in place under the commission's proposal are 1,3-butadiene, acrylamide, bromoethylene, chromium (VI) compounds, ethylene oxide, hardwood dusts, hydrazine, o-toluidine, respirable crystalline silica, refractory ceramic fibers and vinyl chloride monomer.
Could Cut Cancer Cases
The commission said that harmonized EU workplace exposure limits for the substances could reduce the number of cancer cases by 100,000 in the next half century.
Cancer deaths would be avoided in particular by the imposition of a workplace exposure limit on respirable crystalline silica, which is dust created by work processes such as mining, quarrying, or tunnelling or cutting, crushing or grinding of silica-containing materials such as concrete, bricks or rocks, the commission said.
The commission proposed a limit of 0.1 milligram per cubic meter of air for respirable crystalline silica, which would bring the EU into line with Australia and Canada. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a final rule (RIN:1218-AB70) in March limiting respirable crystalline silica exposure to 0.05 miligram per cubic meter.
The commission impact assessment added that the amendments to the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive would complement measures under the EU's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals), under which restrictions or prohibitions have already been put on many of the 13 substances.
For example, a number of chromium compounds are included in Annex XIV of REACH, meaning they cannot be used in the EU without specific continued-use authorizations.
Initiative Welcomed
The European Chemical Industry Council welcomed the proposals.
Marco Mensink, the council's director general, said EU limits for the 13 substances would provide “added value” to “voluntary programs” to reduce workplace exposure to carcinogens in the EU.
David Casa, a Maltese center-right member of the European Parliament, said lawmakers would “make sure that this proposal becomes law in the shortest time frame possible,” because cancer was “the first cause of work-related deaths in the EU.”
For the commission's proposal to be adopted, it must be agreed by the European Parliament, and by the Council of the EU, which represents the governments of member states.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89814980&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89814980&jd=89814980
-
Court Decides to Bypass Panel, Delays Arguments Until Fall
May 16, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
High-stakes litigation over the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan will bypass review by a panel of three judges and instead go before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the fall.
The D.C. Circuit announced the change in a short order today, surprising some attorneys involved in the case.
Oral arguments had been scheduled for early June before a three-judge panel considered favorable for the administration. Now, the case will be heard en banc on Sept. 27.
En banc review -- before the 11 active judges of the court -- is considered extremely rare at the D.C. Circuit.
But with both sides signaling they would request en banc review if the panel did not rule in their favor, the court's move streamlines the case's path to the Supreme Court.
"Because this eliminates that time period before a panel decision and a request for en banc, it allows this case to proceed more rapidly," Dorsey & Whitney attorney James Rubin said. "It definitely shortens the time period for this to get to the Supreme Court."
Still, Supreme Court review is expected well into the next administration.
Of the 11 active judges on the D.C. Circuit, seven are Democratic appointees. But Judges Merrick Garland and Nina Pillard, both Democratic appointees, did not take part in the decision to reschedule the case to en banc review.
Garland is sitting out due to his ongoing Supreme Court nomination consideration. Pillard did not indicate her reasons for sitting out, but her decision does not necessarily mean she won't participate in the litigation.
Natural Resources Defense Council attorney David Doniger, who is representing environmental groups backing the government, said he was still reviewing the order.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) said he welcomed the new timeline and broader review.
"We welcome this unusual step by the full court, which confirms our long-held view that the Power Plan is an unprecedented and transformative rule of a kind the states have never seen from EPA," he said in a statement. "We look forward to presenting our arguments in September."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060037342
-
D.C. Circuit Shifts Plans for Obama Climate Cases
May 16, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Brent Kendall
A federal appeals court decision on the legality of Obama administration rules limiting carbon emissions from power plants likely won’t come until after the November election, thanks to a notable scheduling change announced Monday.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit originally was set to consider a broad array of challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency regulations on June 2. In a brief order issued Monday afternoon, the court indicated it will skip the three-judge approach and go straight to a so-called en banc proceeding, meaning a larger roster of judges will hear the cases. As part of that change, the court postponed oral arguments until Sept. 27.
There was no certainty the original panel of three judges would have ruled by Election Day, but the later argument date makes that prospect even more remote.
In the long run, the en banc proceedings potentially could speed up the litigation process, however, because the losing side’s next and only option will be an appeal to the Supreme Court. After a three-judge panel decision, the losing side can appeal to the full court, but these cases will now go straight to that format.
Monday’s order doesn’t appear to much alter the ideological mix of judges considering the cases. The original three-judge panel was made up of two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee. The D.C. Circuit as a whole leans in a relatively liberal direction thanks to appointments made in recent years by PresidentBarack Obama.
The carbon regulations, a centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s environmental agenda, would require a 32% cut in power-plant carbon emissions by 2030. The rules have been on hold since the Supreme Court stayed them in a surprise February order, one of the court’s last actions before Justice Antonin Scalia died.
More than two dozen states and an array of business groups are challenging the EPA rules.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/05/16/d-c-circuit-shifts-plans-for-obama-climate-cases/
-
Court Showdown Over Obama's Climate Rule Delayed Until the Fall
May 17, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Opponents of the Obama administration’s landmark climate change rule will have to wait three more months to argue their case in federal court.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said Monday that oral arguments in the case over the Clean Power Plan will be held Sept. 27, rather than June 2, when they were originally scheduled earlier this year.
Additionally, the case will be heard by a full panel of nine of the court’s judges. Chief Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Obama has nominated to sit on the Supreme Court, has recused himself from all cases, and Judge Nina Pillard also elected to sit out of the “en banc” case.
The decision to delay the case and expand the panel was made by the court on its own and not in response to a request from any particulate litigant. The court did not explain why it made the decision.
It will likely push back the entire litigation process for a case with dozens of participants that is nearly certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court after the D.C. Circuit’s decision.
Before appealing to the Supreme Court, litigants would have to appeal to the full “en banc” panel of the circuit court, a step that is now precluded.
But by delaying the hearing, the court could also speed up the entire litigation process, since it precludes any parties from appealing a ruling to the court’s full panel of judges.
The Supreme Court halted the regulation earlier this year and said it cannot be enforced until all the litigation is complete. If the Senate does not confirm Garland or another ninth Supreme Court justice and the court’s eight justices remain, it could easily reach a 4-4 tie when the case reaches the high court, in which case the circuit court’s decision would stand.
In the case, West Virginia, along with numerous additional states, energy companies, business interests and others argue that the Environmental Protection Agency is violating the Clean Air Act with last year's limits on carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/280080-climate-rule-case-postponed-3-months
-
Delay in EPA Climate Case Means Decision Unlikely Until After Obama Leaves
May 16, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
President Barack Obama will most likely be a private citizen by the time a court weighs in on the centerpiece of his agenda to fight climate change.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sent shock waves through Washington’s environmental law world on Monday when it issued an unexpected order expanding the oral arguments in the challenge over EPA’s Clean Power Plan to the full court, rather than the previous three-judge panel.
Oral arguments will now take place before the full court on Sept. 27. The cornucopia of judges and sheer complexity of the legal challenge mean that, even on a fast track, the court's ruling is unlikely to come before Obama’s term in office ends in January. The delay also makes it less likely that the Supreme Court hears the case before a ninth justice is confirmed, reducing the likelihood of a 4-4 split in the case.
Lawyers on both sides of the case welcomed the delay.
"We view this as a positive development and we look forward to arguing our case before the entire United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and seeing this illegal and destructive rule is completely invalidated by the courts," said Gary Broadbent, a spokesman for coal producer Murray Energy.
However, the move could still spell good news for EPA.
A majority of D.C. Circuit judges were appointed by Democratic presidents, including three Obama appointees who were confirmed after Senate Democrats in 2013 changed their confirmation rules to banish the filibuster on most nominations.
The D.C. Circuit has 11 active judges, with seven Democratic appointees and four Republican appointees.
However, it appears two of the Democratic appointees — Chief Judge Merrick Garland, who is nominated for the Supreme Court’s open seat, and Judge Nina Pillard, an Obama appointee — may not participate in the case. Both recused themselves from the order expanding the case for reasons unexplained by the court, although Garland has withdrawn from most of his normal duties since being nominated to the Supreme Court earlier this year. It remains to be seen if Garland returns to a more active role by September.
That leaves the court set to hear the case with five Democratic appointees and four Republican appointees.
Though the court’s decision caught all sides by surprise — no one had preemptively asked for a hearing before the full circuit — both the challengers and EPA’s supporters spun the news as a boon for their cause.
“We welcome this unusual step by the full court, which confirms our long-held view that the Power Plan is an unprecedented and transformative rule of a kind the states have never seen from EPA,” said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. “We look forward to presenting our arguments in September.”
Environmentalists, meanwhile, said the move would ultimately speed up the case because the full panel's decision would go straight to the Supreme Court, which stayed the Clean Power Plan in its own surprise move in February. If next month's oral arguments had proceeded, that three-judge panel's decision could have been appealed to the full circuit before going to the high court.
“We welcome immediate en banc review of the merits which avoids overall delay in achieving judicial resolution in the DC Circuit — an especially welcome development in light of the clear and present danger of climate pollution on for our communities and families,” said Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.
The Clean Power Plan challenge is still widely expected to end up before the Supreme Court in some form, but winning at the circuit level is still important as the lower court’s ruling will help set the scope of any appeal.
The delay also throws into question whether the Supreme Court can hear an appeal during next term. Oral arguments in the October 2016 term will wrap up around April 2017, potentially leaving arguments for the fall of 2017 and a ruling from the high court sometime after that.
If Senate Republicans continue to refuse to consider Garland's nomination, that timeline should give the next president time to appoint a new justice, reducing the possibility that the case would be heard by a court evenly split between liberals and conservatives.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/05/epa-carbon-rule-skips-a-step-in-court-113706
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested